The court upheld the authority's order confirming the eligibility of employees for Provident Fund membership despite their salaries exceeding the statutory limit, emphasizing the welfare nature of the legislation.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondents to recall the order of enquiry dated 30th November, 2021 passed under paragraph 26B of the EPF Scheme of 1952 by the respondent no. 2.

2. The petitioner’s case as made out in the writ application is that:

(i) The present dispute involves the question of membership of five such employees, namely, Anirban Roy, Puspendu Mukherjee, Sanjeev Kumar, Prasun Das and P. Vitesh Balaji, who were induced in the petitioner/company on and from the respective dates of their appointment. All these five employees had been issued appointment letters delineating their terms and conditions of service, which get revised from time-to-time. Basic Pay, HRA and Special Allowances had been the components of salaries of these five employees on and from the respective dates of their joining in the establishment. All the employees are presently posted in the Kolkata establishment.

(ii) The monthly salaries of the five concerned persons being more than the salary ceiling limit for coverage under the said Act of 1952, they were deemed to be “excluded employees” as understood within the meaning of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952.

(iii) The petitioner further states that the salaries have been fixed by the company in respect of the five employees aforementioned, and the employment contracts have been duly acted upon by the employer and the employees. It is learnt that such employees had also been drawing salaries in excess of the ceiling limit of coverage for the purpose of the said Act of 1952, while they were employed with their respective previous employers.

(iv) All the aforesaid five employees had fully withdrawn their accumulated amount from the respective account numbers in the Fund and the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had duly credited the respective bank accounts of the aforesaid members with the full amount standing to their credit in the fund along with interest.

(v) The respondent-authorities initiated an inspection process for the purpose of finding out as to whether the establishment in relation to the petitioner/company was depositing contributions under the said Act of 1952 for the aforesaid five employees. In this regard the petitioner/company was asked to submit Forms-11 in respect of the aforesaid five employees since they had been appointed in the company from other establishments. The aforesaid five employees have also submitted their details as regards the dates of joining in the previous organizations and the respective dates of joining in the present establishment, through email communication.

(vi) In course of the inspection carried out on 25.01.2019, the Inspector recorded that the establishment should extend the PF membership to the aforesaid five employees as per paragraph 2(f) and paragraph 26 of the EPF Scheme, 1952.

(vii) The petitioner through a written representation dated February 19, 2019 objected to the said inspection report.

(viii) A subsequent inspection was carried out by the Inspector of the Provident Fund Department on 22.02.2019 on the aforesaid issue.

(ix) The respondent-authorities initiated proceeding towards resolution of doubt in terms of paragraph 26B of the EPF Scheme, 1952 to find out as to whether the aforesaid five employees could be said to be members for whom the petitioner/company would have to discharge liability for paying contributions under the said Act of 1952.

(x) Another inspection report dated 06.09.2021 was prepared by the Inspector of the Provident Fund Department in relation to the proceedings.

(xi) The petitioner/company objected to such inspection report by its written representation dated October 5, 2021, inter alia, asking the Provident Fund Department to produce su